GRAVITY PROBLEMS -- off topic from {Falsifying a young Universe}

Yes, it is called Special and General Relativity, mixed with Quantum Field Theory, Representation Theory, Group Theory, Algebraic Topology, etc Available to anyone willing to sign up for and capable of pursuing a maths/physics degree, followed by a masters in maths/physics, followed by a PhD in maths/physics, followed by active research in maths/physics. If it could be explained simply, why would all that maths/phsyics be necessary? Any layman explanation of this stuff is tantamount to lying. Too often I explain things in layman terms, and the recipient then somehow feels qualified to extrapolate from what I have said, producing utter gibberish. Or worse, they start criticising the theory based upon the analogies provided. That is the crime of vanFlandern.If you are interested, start with the basics: Special Relativity and then General Relativity. I have provided brief explanations to both on this site in the last few months, and you can read more in the books suggested. But believe me, this is merely for curing your curiousity. It will not give you a fraction of the knowledge required to advance these areas, nor even what I would consider a reasonable level of understanding. There are no short cuts... Yup, or put aside ten years of your life and go sign up for that course...

It has nothing to do with the creation/evolution debate. It does have something to do with discovering a spiritual realm behind the natural. There has always been a fundemental level of understanding, and there have always been those that have said that God would be discovered just beyond the next level. He has not been found there yet, so why should now be any different?

Funny you should say this. While it is true that people have always knew God was behind it, (admin- I'm just answering a question here, I didn't bring this up this time) they didn't know the way exactly this was. As I look at our physical universe, I see limits to our understanding, for example, not really knowing at all what gravity really is!!! (I looked up a search with the guy's name you gave in the other thread last night,even though the kink was broken thanks, & I got lots of ammo now)
Understanding the physical universe as best we can is fine, and takes years of study, true. But if this physiacl universe is not infinite, but has limits, then we could refer to it as a box. Your statement, therefore only applies to the box, inside the box. But this box is only so big, and if there is more, then it is the limits of the box that take on a greater importance than the box itself. The question then, is not how long it takes to understand the box, but how to understand where it ends, and what may be beyond it.
Your guesses, and beliefs as to where if at all, this might be, I don't doubt, would be solely based on how the box itself works! These assumptions only hold true if there was nothing else but this physical universe, or, the box. But, like the disparity beween relativity, and Quantum science, most people on earth have found that there are evidences that there is definitely more than just the physical at work. (Hope this forum isn't so allergic to explanations involving a spiritual reality, they try to suspend me here, unlike they seem to do over at Error | Christian Forums)

yep ... according to the way the math works out ... Of course this also brings to mind an image of an hourglass where the narrow waist is the {BB\Inflation} event and one end is the {uncle-matter\forward time} while the other end is {anti-matter\backward time}. That would certainly account for the major proportions of matter observed, while on-going process could cause new anti-matter racing backwards towards the waist (and beyond?).I'm cool with the rest.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

what's your take on this site?Relativity: Einstein's theory of relativity in animations and film clips. Einstein LightIt was given a Science and Technology Award by Scientific American

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I think it's okay.
There is a lot it skips over and there isn't any Minkowski geometry in it, so I can't rate it that highly.
It's a good layman level explanation.However, to put it one way, there is a big difference between knowing an Electric Field and Magnetic Field are connected and understanding Maxwell's Equations.cavediver might think differently.

quote:

---

not really knowing at all what gravity really is!!!

---

Gravitation: Wheeler, Misner, Thorne. 1973 2nd Edition.Read that book, then come back and make that statement again.

Yeah, but my suggestion of taking 10 years out will save him a lot of time compared to reading his way through MTW

Yep, the maths of special relativity... that same maths that gives the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction which obviously isn't real becasue how the f*** is anything going to actually shrink, huh? And time-dilation, ha ha, yeah right. That really is going to turn out to be a real effect. What next, Einstein, time travel??? Jeez, the way these mathmematicians actually believe that these things could be real in any way rather than just mathematical artifacts. It's time these idiots used a little common sense...

True, it is a bit on the enormous side.
(Hence the old undergrad joke of it being big enough to locally bend space itself).
And Wheeler has a very idiosyncratic way of approaching things.Biggest Physics textbook I've ever seen.
Next to Serway and Jewett, but it's a monster.

I was in the process of adding a line about how my copy underwent collapse, when I thought... no, a little too undergrad I found my copy for 25 in pristine condition on my first day of Part III. I took it as a good omen.Wheeler is idiosyncratic but have you tried Penrose and Rindler yet? You haven't lived until you've tried to fathom Penrose's tensor diagrams!

I like it. I take SG's criticisms, but for 5 mins it's damn good. It is historical, and as much as I favour the Minkowski approach, it is not part of the historical development of SR.My only dislikes were the the very quick introduction of light (could have had a 20 second connection to the moving charges) and the talk around E=mc^2 helping perpetuate the horrible myth of nuclear power converting matter into energy in some way. This is one area I like to take the fifth over until I'm satisfied with the understanding of the recipient.

No, I haven't, although I think I will now.
I've heard others say that sometimes Penrose reads like he forgets other people don't understand his own particular way of doing things or the difficulty of it.Take a Road to Reality.
On the First page it says it is suitable for the lay reader.
By chapter 17 he is taking about what entity in the Maxwell Equations would be the Electromagentic analogue of the Weyl Tensor.It'd be one impressive lay person who could figure out all of complex analysis, Tensors, SR, GR, QM, QFT, QED, QCD, String Theory and LQG from his book just by reading carefully through the chapters.

Oh, you've got to smile If you haven't yet seen him talk, make the effort before he leaves us. I still kick myself for not managing to catch Feynman.Penrose and Rindler is much worse than Road to Reality. Here they do not assume you are a lay reader...This message has been edited by cavediver, 10-12-2005 08:06 PM

I don't need to read it to make that statement. Also, I don't buy the stuff about not being able to explain things unless you throw a good part of your life away!"Exactly why two masses separated in space have a gravitational attraction to one another remains largely unknown, despite much research and various (Click link for more info and facts about theories) theories. "
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/...lopedia/g/gr/gravity.htm
Now that didn't take so long, did it?This message has been edited by simple, 10-12-2005 11:40 PM